The ONS puts consistency first

Mathematician writes out formula on a blackboard

Britain's Office for National Statistics has decided, when it comes to inflation, it's better to be consistent than to be right.

It is not going to seriously change the way that Britain's oldest inflation index is calculated, even though that goes against the recommendation of its own Advisory Committee and many international bodies such as the International Monetary Fund.

Those in the financial markets who had bet on a different outcome will be disappointed. So too will the Chancellor - who stood to save billions a year in debt interest from the change.

Economists and statisticians who think the Retail Prices Index (RPI) is seriously flawed won't be happy either. Many of them thought a change was long overdue.

But, anyone with a pension or investment that is still linked to the RPI will be deeply relieved. There are nearly £300bn-worth of index-linked government bonds, or gilts. Countless other investments and pensions are linked to it as well.

If you're dependent on an index-linked annuity, the change being contemplated by the ONS could have cut its value by 15% over 20 years, with the cost widening every year.

Coming on top of the other savings that the government has been making, that would have been a serious blow. Even if many economists would say that the change had made the index more accurate.

Carli v Jevons

If we were creating the Retail Prices Index from scratch, the National Statistician, Jil Matheson, admits that we would not design it the way it is now.

The Carli formula - which is used to generate nearly 30% of the RPI - has some strengths, but is not used by any other serious statistical body in the world because it tends systematically to overstate inflation, especially when prices for a certain good are highly variable.

If the prices of clothes rise very sharply, then come back down to where they were, you might think that an inflation index should show no overall change. That is what the Jevons method - used in the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) and around the world - would show.

But the Carli formula would say there had been some inflation - even though prices are back to where they were at the start.

The Jevons (geometric) method also takes greater account of the fact that consumers tend to switch to other products if one becomes more expensive. Whether that makes it better than the Carli depends on the good you're talking about, but many statisticians consider it another plus.

So much for the statistical niceties. What difference does it make?

By itself, this difference in formula has tended to make the RPI 0.9 percentage points higher than the CPI, on average, since 2010. (That was when they changed the way they collected price data for clothes. Before that, the formula effect led to a difference of around half a percentage point.)

Remember, that's independent of any difference between them that is caused by the fact that more housing costs are included in the RPI.

That sometimes makes it lower than the CPI and sometimes makes it higher. You might remember that RPI inflation rate went negative in 2009, when interest rates were falling sharply, whereas the CPI measure never went below 1%.

Serious consideration

The point about the formula effect is that it systematically pushes the RPI higher, relative to the other index, when inflation is positive.

So, time for a change, many people thought. But in weighing this decision, the ONS also had to weigh the interests of the millions of people who hold investments and pensions that are linked to the RPI.

In effect, Ms Matheson has decided to put them - and the historical integrity of the index - before anything else.

As I said, it will be a shock for the City: the shorter-term index-linked bonds, which have suffered in the past few months as a result of the consultation, will probably go up today. But some inside the ONS will not be surprised.

I served briefly on the Consumer Prices Advisory Committee, set up a few years ago to advise on such changes, along with other outsiders like the FT Economics Editor and representatives of the Bank of England and the CBI.

I left before they got into discussing this issue. But even from the few meetings I attended, it was clear that people at the ONS take the historical consistency of the RPI very seriously indeed.

I often have to explain why GDP and other economic statistics have been revised down - or up. You might have noticed that that never happens with the CPI or RPI. There is just too much money riding on them.

Once released, the inflation numbers stand for all time, even if it turns out someone has made a mistake. The RPI does not get revised. And looking ahead, the ONS has decided it's not going to be seriously updated, either.

Update: 11.28 GMT

The FT's Economics Editor, Chris Giles, has been much more pointed in his coverage of the RPI decision. (As I mentioned earlier, he still serves on the Consumer Prices Advisory Committee, which favoured a change in the RPI formula).

He says he "cannot think of another occasion when national statisticians have discovered a major conceptual error and decided to do nothing about it".

He also disputes my suggestion that the RPI has been historically consistent, pointing out there have been many changes over the years, like the introduction of mortgage interest payments, which make it very different today from when it started in the late 1940s.

This paper from the ONS outlines the history of these changes, some of them fairly significant.

Looking at the list, it's hard to see a change that systematically affected the value of the entire index, in a single direction, as much as dumping the Carli formula would have done.

Still, you might say the size of the change doesn't matter. The point is that they have made changes before, in order to make the index more accurate, even at the cost of making it less consistent over time.

If the ONS believed this change would also improve the quality of the index - why not go ahead?

In looking for an answer, it's hard to escape the conclusion that the size of the change did matter, a lot. The National Statistician looked at the sheer scale of the financial impact, and the public response to the consultation (more than 80% opposed the change, almost always for financial reasons), and just couldn't stomach it.

Some will find the decision welcome, and understandable - especially those who think the RPI and the CPI are both a poor reflection of the inflation faced by pensioners.

As Robert Peston has pointed out, holders of indexed gilts could argue that they paid for the inflation protection offered by the traditional RPI, and they are legally entitled to get it.

Others will say the ONS chickened out.

But critics of this decision are right to emphasise one point. It's not just the Chancellor that loses out - it's all of us, in our capacity as taxpayers.

If, as the ONS itself accepts, the RPI has an "upward bias", then we as taxpayers have been over-compensating investors for the impact of inflation, to the tune of billions of pounds a year.

Thanks to this decision, we're going to carry on overcompensating them.

It's worth pointing out that any young person with a student loan will also lose out, because their official loans are indexed to the RPI. Rightly or wrongly, the ONS has put the interests of pensioners and bondholders first.

Stephanie Flanders Article written by Stephanie Flanders Stephanie Flanders Former economics editor

So it's goodbye from me

After 11 years at the BBC, I'm leaving for a new role in the City.

Read full article


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 153.

    We have moved into an evironment the opposite of thr Thatcher war on Union bullies, the bullies now being accounts wringing every last percentage point out of wages and peoples pockets.

    Let's hope that consistency remains thin a while longer.

    It is difficult to comprehend how a financial crisis caused by the financial cummunity can do anything else but expand, whilst investment is dividend.

  • rate this

    Comment number 152.

    The problem with all price indices is that it is often difficult to remove volume changes from the data. The idea is a price index for constant volumes. So it is always necessary to construct arbitrary shopping baskets! The 'whole expenditure ideas' (below) have exactly this problem - but in spades.

    Unfortunately we need statisticians - the problem comes when we rely on their data as correct!

  • rate this

    Comment number 151.

    @149.Geoff Berry

    Angelas little helper
    You are wrong, 3 times Brown said it from the Despatch Box, check the Hansards

    No you are wrong, he never said he had abolished "Gobal boom & bust"
    Hansard 22/03/06
    "no return to boom and bust"

    NO GLOBAL but sometimes TORY as I said

  • rate this

    Comment number 150.

    If you measured "everything we spend as a nation" & included things we buy to make things, price increases in those will push retail prices higher so you'd be measuring the same "inflation" twice so you have to restrict it to retail prices. even if you accurately extract "retail" then you'd have an accurate retail prices index but that's not a robust definition of inflation

  • rate this

    Comment number 149.

    Angelas little helper

    You are wrong, 3 times Brown said it from the Despatch Box, check the Hansards, 2ce in Budget Statements.

  • rate this

    Comment number 148.

    Carli Formula: a bit like global warming!!


  • rate this

    Comment number 147.

    If the basket of goods were to include everything we spend as a nation (correctly weighted), then *adding* all items together would give the country's total spending. And thus the weighted arithmetic mean of all the price rises would give the correct value of inflation - the actual rise in overall costs that each of us faces.

    A geometric mean does not achieve this.

  • rate this

    Comment number 146.

    It is interesting most people on here think that inflation is much higher than recorded. Given that GDP is adjusted by RPI to get the real GDP figure that would suggest that real GDP is actually much more negative than the current Government figures suggest. Now that would be very alarming news indeed.

  • rate this

    Comment number 145.

    "If the prices of clothes rise very sharply, then come back down to where they were" [an arithmetic mean] "would say there had been some inflation".

    Sorry not true.

    Provided the weightings in the index were correctly adjusted for the second period (to take into account that clothes take up a larger % of overall spending) then the overall effect would be zero, just as with a geometric mean.

  • rate this

    Comment number 144.

    @140.Geoff Berry
    I don't think he ever said global boom & bust, on at least one occasion he said "Tory boom & bust". Some other neo-liberal politicians round the world made similar claims, most western Governments governments are neo-liberal & would think the same so they wouldn't be laughing.
    That doesn't excuse Brown in any way but nor does it excuse rewriting history

  • rate this

    Comment number 143.

    inflation is not an issue in a healthy economy (subject to ensuring it doesn't become excessive by the economy overheating). exactly how badly its measured, wouldn't be worrying anyone but a few economics nerds if incomes were rising & well-paid work was plentiful.

  • rate this

    Comment number 142.

    Yet another 3800 jobs lost this week. Yet another 3800 jobless people to hide from the unemployment figures.

  • rate this

    Comment number 141.

    How the various prices indices are computed is quite technical involving concepts like weighting and the geometric mean.
    I would have thought that if the ONS thought that the methodology of the CPI was superior to the RTI then it should have recommended the former approach and left the final decision, which is essentially political, with politicians.

  • rate this

    Comment number 140.


    Spot on, a major contibutor to the Labour governments election 2005 con trick 'the property feel good factor'.

    Brown stood at the Despatch Box on 3 separate occasions 2005/7 on live TV and claimed his personal credit for abolishing gobal boom and bust.

    The world fell about laughing but Brown was half correct, he abolished boom, and busted the UK for two generations to come.

  • rate this

    Comment number 139.

    Quantative Easing just increases inflation

    no it doesn't, some of the other things they're doing to get banks lending might (if banks lend it in addition to "normal" lending - currently they're not). Simplifying, money has to be spent to cause inflation & QE is by definition never spent. QE is actually a complicated way of lowering interest rates when the base rate is at rock bottom

  • rate this

    Comment number 138.


    You confirm that the ONLY way to get savers to spend (the only people with actual money to spend) is to put up interest rates.

    Till the debt is deflated (and asset prices tumble) there can be no recovery. That condition precedent for recovery is seen in all depressions.

    It is also true that the buffoons running the place do the wrong thing for ages - till the penny drops!

  • rate this

    Comment number 137.

    127.BluesBerry "When Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney takes helm, he will have a more true capitalistic approach on inflation."

    Just been chatting to Canadian relatives and they confirm that your expectations are misplaced!

    He has been recruited BECAUSE he will carry on with the banking support system and reject any return to market capitalism. He may even be worse that the present clowns.

  • rate this

    Comment number 136.

    Quantative Easing just increases inflation so that is why the government prefer to see an indexation that gives a lower figure. They are creating inflation but don't want indexes that show reality. As folk on here have pointed out, no one believes inflation is as low as even RPI makes out, never mind CPI.

  • rate this

    Comment number 135.

    Another 3800 jobs lost this week alone.
    'coalition' translation:
    Another 3800 jobseekers have been given the opportunity to join one our schemes to get those who choose to be unemployed into work. (that way we can continue to manipulate the figures to make it look as if we are actually creating jobs instead of losing them).
    Remember, no disposable income equals no market to sell to.

  • rate this

    Comment number 134.

    IIs there anyone who thinks inflation is as low as is stated. I don't know of anything going up less than 5% and often by double digits. Just who's basket of goods is represented? Few people have cash spare for anything beyond the basics. It's really becoming quite farcical and destroying confidence in government and the Bank of England, whilst savings are plummeting in real terms.


Page 1 of 8



Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.